ram mandir donation theft
New Delhi: On Monday, 20 July, the Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to check with its officials whether the SIT (Special Investigation Team) into money-related queries at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple in Ayodhya could be reconstituted with fresh faces. It also said it would like the probe to be led by a senior IPS officer, with experience of dealing with tricky cases of business and crime.
The remarks came as the court was considering a petition calling for a fair and independent probe into how funds and donations were raised and spent for the temple project. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, took no concrete view on the allegations. It only directed the UP government to share its views on bolstering the existing investigation.
This petition involves allegations that temple money that was earmarked for the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi project has allegedly been misappropriated. The respondents want a robust, independent investigation. They say the public requires enhanced transparency and scrutiny of these allegations.
The bench highlighted that during the hearing, it would have preferred a senior IPS officer, with experience in dealing with sensitive investigations, to supervise the probe. Hence, the court directed the UP government to relook into the structure of the SIT that is currently working on the case.
Significantly, neither did the Supreme Court call for a fresh investigation, nor did it pass any finding as to the correctness of the allegations. It was only addressing the organizational structure and the person leading the investigation team.
The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust, for whom the temple project is run, has already denied any impropriety. The allegations in the petition, till now, have not survived the test of law and no court has found that there has been any financial malfeasance.
Ayodhya’s Ram temple is arguably one of the most significant religious developments in this country. It has received massive donations from devotees from all over the world. The issue of appropriateness of management is then a question which inevitably attracts a lot of interest from the public.
The Supreme Court was trying to signal its preference for the current investigation to be conducted by a person who has eminence that would lend credibility and professionalism. The court had not, however, made a verdict on the allegations and so the case was only at the stage of investigation and review.
The UP government has to now answer the court as to whether it is willing to reconstitute the SIT and install a more senior officer at its head. Then the court has to decide if there still exists the need for any other directions.
In the future, the case will more likely revolve around issues related to the investigation itself, such as the scope and nature of independence, rather than the allegations, which are yet to be resolved.
